Nathan Scandella (personal)

Why I Didn't Vote for Obama

If you read my pre-election blogs, it might seem as if I was enamored with now President-Elect Obama. Actually, it was more a feeling that John McCain would be too much like George W. Bush, and thus was a President to be avoided like the plague. I have no qualms about saying that W. will go down as the worst President that anyone alive today has ever seen.

That being said, I'm not wild about Barack Obama. Some of my hesitation is based on pragmatic concerns, and some on ideological reasons. Pragmatism first:

The President of the United States really is just about the most important job in the world. We have 300 million citizens, and one of the greatest meritocracies ever to grace Planet Earth. We should not have to take chances with inexperienced candidates. This is one job opening that should be attracting all the best resumes out there. When you look at what Obama has campaigned on, and then what he's actually done, there's a shocking discrepancy. He really has no significant accomplishments (other than being elected) to speak of. Shouldn't we expect more than that?

I'll confess that I had the same comment when California elected Arnold Swarzenegger, who I'm now a fan of. However, the Governor of California is definitely not the most important job in the world. Second of all, while Arnold had a severe lack of political experience, he had two strong factors on his side, that Obama does not. First of all, Arnie is a member in one of this country's premier political families. The connections he has, the advice he's received, and the mental preparation he brought to Sacramento have all been important results of having married a Kennedy. Secondly, Arnold had twice previously risen to the very top of competitive fields. I firmly believe that one (of many) important qualities for a President is the culture of winning. Some people seem to find ways to win. They don't tolerate losing. They'll do whatever is necessary, learn from whomever they can, and make whatever changes they need to in order to secure victory. This is something that can't be taught. The desire is either there, or it isn't. Some people also command the respect and admiration of the people they interact with, and if that command is coupled with ambition, winning generally ensues.

Most people feel that Obama does indeed have this quality, but I'm not sure. While this victory is grand, it doesn't come as the next in a long line of previous victories. I still leave open the possibility that he was simply in the right place at the right time. With Swarzenegger, I'm beyond the point of thinking there's any luck involved in his success.

Of course, anyone who becomes President of the United States has one large trophy to put on their mantle. But, obviously, all of our Presidents have not done a great job. I'm concerned that Obama may not have the strength to accomplish what we need him to do. Jimmy Carter was a bright man, but simply wasn't the right man to lead the US out of its post-Vietnam era doldrums. I hope Obama doesn't share Carter's impotence, but without any record of accomplishment, my skepticism is hard to suppress.

Ideologically, I'm disappointed in the way Obama won. First of all, the Democratic primaries were a joke. Obama barely beat out Hillary Clinton, and was aided by a couple major perversions of democracy. The fact that the primaries are held on so many different days allows for a candidate to develop "momentum", and encourages subsequent voters to hop on the bandwagon. After Super Tuesday, the press made Obama the presumptive nominee, and I think Clinton lost votes because of it. She rallied nicely and won a majority of the final states, but the popular opinion had already been etched in stone. This very effect is why the constitution stipulates that voting in the general election must all be done on the same day. You force voters to vote for the candidate they think is best, not to watch what earlier voters did, and follow the herd. Primaries should be conducted the same way.

On a related note, Michigan and Florida moved their primaries up in order to fight the irrelevance caused by the aforementioned schedule "feature". Who can blame them? Why should Iowa and New Hampshire be more important than Michigan and Florida? Unfortunately for Clinton, those are states (based on demographics and polling) that she clearly would have done well in. After the fact, the DNC finally agreed to count the votes of Michigan and Florida, but only at half of face value. That was a cop-out. Counting them at half-value allowed the DNC to say that they counted those states, but didn't given Clinton the full credit she needed to make up Obama's lead. It was a pathetic symbolic move by the Democrats. Given how many liberals have cried foul over suppression of votes in both of George W. Bush's victories, I find it very hypocritical that they would choose to suppress half of two of their most important states in this way.

In addition, while Clinton fared better in the voting primaries, Obama dominated the caucus states. I have never understood the appeal of a caucus, and in this case, I think it changed the outcome of the election. In a race where the first serious black candidate is competing against a white candidate, white Democratic voters are going to be very cautious about being too critical of Obama in a public forum, for fear of being labeled "racists". The fact of the matter was, there were plenty of valid reasons to prefer Clinton to Obama. The caucus system exposed the hyper-political-correctness of liberals, and it cost Hillary Clinton. Not to mention that the caucus system also suppresses votes, by requiring participants to comply with a rigid schedule (as opposed to voting, which can often by done by mail). Any system that discourages participation in the democratic process should be considered inferior. I personally did not have my "vote" counted because I was sick on the day of Washington's caucus. Why should that matter at all? Interestingly enough, while Washington apportions delegates based on a caucus, they do also hold a normal vote (for what reason?). Many in my state actually don't know that the vote is non-binding; only the caucus counts. In Washington, Obama won the caucus by approximately 2 to 1 over Clinton, while the popular vote was nearly even. Hence, my point.

At the end of the primaries, Obama held a slim lead over Clinton (based on the votes the DNC actually decided to count), but not enough to secure the nomination. A number of superdelegates, who previously aligned with Clinton, endorsed Obama at the last minute, to avoid reversing the will of the "popular vote" (that term is used very loosely). Why have superdelegates, if they're not going to vote for their preferred candidate? Clearly, Democratic leadership was concerned about the fallout if they allowed a close race to end in defeat for a historic candidate like Obama. That's mighty thoughtful of them, but it's also cowardly. Hillary Clinton had paid her dues as a Washington insider. She had every right to expect that to translate into votes from superdelegates she's had a relationship with. Instead, those delegates took the easy route, and supported Obama at the eleventh hour.

Now, these democratic (little 'd' or big 'D') shortcomings are not Barack Obama's fault, but he still did benefit from them. I also honestly feel that the majority of Democrats voted for him for the wrong reasons. During the primaries, Obama focused heavily on three things:

• he'll end the Iraq war


• he'll change the partisan culture in Washington


• he'll take on campaign finance reform

At this point in the campaign, Obama (rightfully) focused on his opposition to the Iraq war from the start. This was a difference between himself and most of the other Democratic candidates (including Clinton). He repeated this message so many times, that his supporters began to assume that he would end the war, if elected. But they didn't read the fine print. First of all, Obama isn't planning to end the war in Iraq. He's going to reduce our troop levels. Combat brigades will be removed. But, if you read between the lines, you realize that we could still be left with tens of thousands of American soldiers occupying Iraq. And, yes, those soldiers will have guns. And they will be carrying out counter-insurgency missions. Hmmm. That sounds kind of like a war.

As for the troops who leave Iraq, Obama would redeploy many of them to Afghanistan. But, were liberals screaming for more attention to be paid to Afghanistan, or do they want the troops to come home? They may be so desperate for peace, that they take "I was against the war from the start", and "it's time for change", to mean something entirely different than what Obama is actually talking about. It's not his fault, but I fear that Democrats have made Obama out to be what they want him to be. Without a strong record to contradict this vision, you can see how this misconception is sustainable.

Obama also talks about the partisanship in our federal government. But, I'm having a hard time understanding how a Senator who voted with his party 96% of the time will change that. A moderate Democrat might be able to campaign that way. Hell, John McCain and Mitt Romney could campaign that way. But, for a lefty like Obama, that's a bit of a stretch. Granted, now that he'll have a strong majority in both houses, bipartisanship may not be as crucial. But, it was his campaign message, and it is what Democrats and Independents are expecting of him. While it's fantastic that as a country, we're at the point where we can elect a black President, I'm not sure the conservatives in Congress will be rolling out the red carpet for Obama the way the press did.

Certainly, part of Bush's problem reaching out to Democrats is his personality. His ignorance and arrogance make working with him difficult for Democrats and other world leaders alike. I doubt Obama will have any problems based on personality. But, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that the divide in this country is all about Bush's personality. This country is deeply divided because of issues - such as Iraq, taxes, abortion, gay marriage, science and religion. Obama isn't going to make conservatives forget about their principles. Even before he takes office, they'll be digging in their heels.

Lastly, Obama's primary season message focused on campaign finance reform. I found that ironic at the time, and even more so now. That talking point was almost completely dropped during the general election, since next to John McCain, Obama doesn't really have a leg to stand on here. His move to verbally agree to public financing with McCain, only to change his mind and keep his private money, was a bit too shifty to make me believe the rhetoric about reforms here. But again, this is another issue where the headlines, and the impression Democratic voters got, may not be aligned with what Obama's really talking about. The fine print clearly reveals that Obama isn't interested in curbing the power of money in future campaigns. It's about stemming the influence of certain "kinds" of money. Barack Obama significantly outspent his opponents in the primaries, and completely overwhelmed John McCain's modest funds in the general election. Obama is all about buying an election via advertising. He won that way, and he's not likely to change that aspect of the system.

Obama will argue that his contributors represent small donors, or grassroots support. While that maybe a little better than funding from Big Oil and Tobacco, money is still money. Lots of money is still lots of money. And if that's what you have, then you can swamp the airwaves, internet, and front lawns with your name and logo. As basic as that is, the marketing industry has proven time and again that it works. Personally, I would love to see the financial playing field leveled for candidates in presidential elections. I don't think we owe it to Capitalism to use it everywhere. In order to do this, you need caps on campaign spending, and the money should come from the public fund. If one candidate accepts it, the other one should, too. Not only did Obama stick McCain with the smaller pool of funds, but he denied requests to increase the number of "free" appearances (McCain's proposed town-hall debates). Accepting these challenges would have given McCain equal access to a large viewing audience, without relying on campaign funds. This is the same trick Obama pulled on Hillary Clinton as she desperately tried to make her money last.

I could also mention a few policy differences I have with Obama. I'm certainly not pro-union, or big on welfare. I am willing to show some spine, and come out (pun intended) in support of gay marriage. I do believe in getting serious about balancing the budget. And I'm as firmly opposed to his Afghanistan plan as he was to Bush's Iraq plan.

After all was said and done, I voted for Ralph Nader. I did so on election day, having seen the polls projecting a certain victory for Obama in Washington. So, I opted to vote on principle. Ralph Nader has done more for this country than John McCain and Barack Obama put together. I do hope, however, that Obama uses this opportunity to close that accomplishment gap. If he does what he says, concerning creating green infrastructure, then I'll be his most vocal supporter; but I think I'll wait to see it happen first.

Posted at 09:18PM Nov 13, 2008 by Nathan in Politics  |  Comments[1]